Author
Topic: Until all is fulfilled (Read 1406 times)

This is an argument about what the second fulfilled in Mat 5:17-18 means

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I argue that KJV and most Bible translations use fulfill twice, to obscure an issue that may not have a clear conclusion.

The discussion in the above link notices that genetai is used in Matthew 24:34- “This generation shall be no means pass until all of these things are fulfilled (genetai). [heos an panta tauta genetai][till -ever- all - these things - may be occurring]

Quote

I responded that the cross is without any doubt, the foundation and power leading to the fulfillment of all things, but, that the linguistics of Matthew 5:18 forbid Joel’s application. I noted that in Matthew 5:18 the word for fulfilled “until it is all fulfilled” is genetai. As Nolland, in the New International Greek Testament Commentary says of genetai: “The clause remains difficult, but it seems most likely to be concerned to guarantee a permanence to the Law until such time as every item on the Law’s agenda has been achieved. Until all that it lays out as God’s will for humankind has been accomplished.” (page 220)– “until it has all happened.” (John Nolland, New International Greek Testament Commentary, Matthew, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Paternoster, 2005) 221). This is the consensus of scholarship on genetai.

If the idea that the law has been removed due to Jesus' death, then why mention heaven and earth passing?

It's like me saying "I will be here until heaven and earth passes, til I leave." There is no OR in the statement.

If the intention was to convey what most western Christians believe: "For verily I say unto you, the law will be in place until I have removed it by fullfilling it", then why not just say so? In that statement, I pretend that Jesus can't boast about dying for us. He could say "For verily I say unto you, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

This is, no doubt, a difficult verse and one which, therefore, is likely to be skipped over the Christians. Nonetheless, there ought to be an explanation.

From a scholarship point of view, the verse is difficult as it states something, it seems, which should but has not happened. Matthew was writing this is the 70s and the gospel was not a selected one for the bible until maybe the end of the 2nd century. There was plenty of time for, anyone who wanted, the text to be redacted to lose this potentially embarrassing line. Scholarship suggests that embarrassing lines are more likely to be original as people would have known if it was changed. However, I don't know if we can rely on that.

Jesus is supposed to have said this before his death - so somewhere around 30ce (assuming his death as 33ce.) By the time Matthew was writing it down pretty much everyone who had seen Jesus was dead and Matthew himself certainly didn't see or hear him. Even if this line is original it is hard to see why it was put into the text when it was obviously wrong - as it hadn't happened as Jesus predicted - and no one would have been in a position to object to it if it had been redacted so as not to be plain wrong. Thus we have the added problem of why the verse is there in the first place.

So far as the text itself is concerned, I think it is quite possible that Jesus thought that his death would bring about the end of the age and might really have believed that people living at the same time as himself would be there to see it before they died. This is dependant on whether Matthew is reporting the facts correctly - something which we cannot know. I suppose it is equally possible that Matthew put words like this in Jesus mouth that referred to Matthew's generation and that someone redacted the text to the present words. If so, it was Matthew that though the end was very near.

I remain convinced that, somewhere along the line, the text has been badly redacted so that getting the proper meaning from the words is not longer really possible. We can, of course, make guesses but, of course, there is no way we can know if our guesses are right or not.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

This is, no doubt, a difficult verse and one which, therefore, is likely to be skipped over the Christians. Nonetheless, there ought to be an explanation.

From a scholarship point of view, the verse is difficult as it states something, it seems, which should but has not happened. Matthew was writing this is the 70s and the gospel was not a selected one for the bible until maybe the end of the 2nd century. There was plenty of time for, anyone who wanted, the text to be redacted to lose this potentially embarrassing line. Scholarship suggests that embarrassing lines are more likely to be original as people would have known if it was changed. However, I don't know if we can rely on that.

Jesus is supposed to have said this before his death - so somewhere around 30ce (assuming his death as 33ce.) By the time Matthew was writing it down pretty much everyone who had seen Jesus was dead and Matthew himself certainly didn't see or hear him. Even if this line is original it is hard to see why it was put into the text when it was obviously wrong - as it hadn't happened as Jesus predicted - and no one would have been in a position to object to it if it had been redacted so as not to be plain wrong. Thus we have the added problem of why the verse is there in the first place.

So far as the text itself is concerned, I think it is quite possible that Jesus thought that his death would bring about the end of the age and might really have believed that people living at the same time as himself would be there to see it before they died. This is dependant on whether Matthew is reporting the facts correctly - something which we cannot know. I suppose it is equally possible that Matthew put words like this in Jesus mouth that referred to Matthew's generation and that someone redacted the text to the present words. If so, it was Matthew that though the end was very near.

I remain convinced that, somewhere along the line, the text has been badly redacted so that getting the proper meaning from the words is not longer really possible. We can, of course, make guesses but, of course, there is no way we can know if our guesses are right or not.

Well put.

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

I remain convinced that, somewhere along the line, the text has been badly redacted so that getting the proper meaning from the words is not longer really possible. We can, of course, make guesses but, of course, there is no way we can know if our guesses are right or not.

They are Jewish Christians, arguing that Torah law is still in power. They scorn Christians who have mangled Paul's words to suit the idea that Torah law has been replaced. I don't know how they get past Galatians (and I have sent them an email), but I will ignore that problem. It's theirs.

As you point out, Matthew didn't know about any other book in the NT, and thought he was writing to Jewish Christians; ie, the people like who I just linked to, that Paul scorns in Galatians. Would there have been plenty of time for redaction? (and correction). Not if Matthew was redacted a bit later, to suit Jewish sensibilities, or if the Jewish Christian church persisted so long that nobody could change Matthew, because it was now sacrosanct, and in multiple copies.

Without Matthew, the Christian doctrine would be pretty lame. I think if you cut it out, you are left with Luke, who is not even an eyewitness, because he says so. John is a different Messianic model. So, Christians had to include it, because it had authority, up to the time of Justin Martyr. The early church would have been full of Judaisers, whether the Pauline Christians liked it or not. So, their solution was to hide the problem.

The first "fulfill" is plerOsai -> completeThe second "fulfill" is genetai -> the universe has endedThe next "fulfill" is in John 19:28 tetelestai / teleiOthE -> finish/ perfected

Thus you have a load of words that are not etymologically connected, but are united by the translation, to create the preconception of what Pauline Christians want to see.

From the top; this is what I believe Matthew, the Jewish Christian says: (I will write my literal interpretation in purple)

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, I haven't come to destroy the law, or even change existing law, because I'm a Jew, who believes his father. Who said that I did?

or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.I am here to explain to you how to follow Jewish laws, because you have it all upside down

[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,The law is divine and shall exist for all time, and even in heaven.

till all be fulfilled.re-iterates (tautology) Until God's whole plan has unfolded (including resurrection, and people in heaven eventually dying, after the eon is over)

[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:If anyone teaches you to break many Jewish laws, they will probably not make it into heaven

but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.(Read between the lines) It's OK to break some Jewish laws, but you must never teach people that it's OK to do so, or that you plan to do so, yourself

[20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.In order to enter the Kingdom, you must at bare minimum adhere to all Jewish law, as the scribes do, ... but you have to do even more than them... explained next

[21] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:[22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[23] Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;[24] Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.[25] Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.[26] Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.......

Now, this section is called the Sermon, and many have wondered if it is hyperbole, and whether you are supposed to adhere to all of it's impossible demands, to be a Christian. Even though, paradoxically, Jesus is supposed to forgive you for everything. Instead, they are missing that you are supposed to adhere to all of Judaism, and the Sermon is, to some extent, pick and choose.

What Jesus is saying is that you must adhere to Judaism, to be at least as good as the scribes, but you also need to attend to as many of the Sermon precepts as you can. This gives you the turbo boost, to get into the bottom of heaven. A person who makes his best shot to follow all of the Sermon, is aiming for the greatest in heaven.

[28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

This translates as : I have allowed it to be NOW POSSIBLE for the commoner to get into heaven, but you still have to work very hard for it, and have a high level of faith in God.

What then confuses Christians is how all the people pre-Christ will be judged, if you have to "believe in Jesus" to be saved. I think you don't have to believe in Jesus to be saved, because he just built the highway across to heaven. Now all the people in Sheol who have been sitting there for millennia, twiddling their thumbs can move across the highway, whether they believed in Jesus or not.

The criterion for whether you can cross the highway, is how much of Jewish law you held, and how much of his Sermon precepts you may have implemented voluntarily. That is, you may not have known, pre-Christ, that you were supposed to give all your wealth way, but you may have been a good Jew, and forgiven debts, and helped strangers, like it said in the text.

I conclude that the trinitarian command at the end of Matthew is an addition on the basis that

1. nowhere else in the Gospel is there this association of the three characters2. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is shown as subservient to God which includes praying to God. If Jesus were, in fact, god he would have no need to pry to himself would he? 3. This is the last paragraph of Matthew and its theology of different. Surely that means an addition doesn't it? 4. Finally, we have parallel account in Acts 1. Jesus, in this parallel account doesn't use and trinitarian terms. now we can't date this very easily, though some see Luke as a little later than Matthew due to the minor agreements.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

2. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is shown as subservient to God which includes praying to God. If Jesus were, in fact, god he would have no need to pry to himself would he?

Jesus says he's not "good" at a point where he could easily accept being called good. In the Jewish monotheist tradition, I suppose the Messiah is a special priest, or prophet. There is really no need for him to be God, so I don't know why they put the effort into making him a god, except for brand name recognition. You can't sell your TM religion, if it just says worship God and be good. The Jewish Christians at least have the trademark adherence to Jewish Law. But if you abandon Jewish law, and then say "worship god, and be good", then that makes you Islamic. So, how can you sell it? Jesus has to be the TM God. If you don't worship Jesus, then you die. Never mind that they don't even spell his name, Yeshua, correctly.

2. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is shown as subservient to God which includes praying to God. If Jesus were, in fact, god he would have no need to pry to himself would he?

Jesus says he's not "good" at a point where he could easily accept being called good. In the Jewish monotheist tradition, I suppose the Messiah is a special priest, or prophet. There is really no need for him to be God, so I don't know why they put the effort into making him a god, except for brand name recognition. You can't sell your TM religion, if it just says worship God and be good. The Jewish Christians at least have the trademark adherence to Jewish Law. But if you abandon Jewish law, and then say "worship god, and be good", then that makes you Islamic. So, how can you sell it? Jesus has to be the TM God. If you don't worship Jesus, then you die. Never mind that they don't even spell his name, Yeshua, correctly.

Well, I must say I thought the Jewish Messiah was going to be more of a king - a fighter - who would bring the land back to Israel and re-establish the religion in Jerusalem, which I think includes a new temple and sacrifices. This was why Jesus was not accepted by the Jews as he didn't fulfil the requirements.

Incidentally, in Greek Jesus is I(y)sous. This translates in German as Jesus - the 'j' being the 'y' sound in German. It is only lazy translations that end up with the English 'j'.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Since Yeshua is spelled "Jeshua" and not "Jesus" in most English versions of the Old Testament (for example in Ezra 2:2 and 2 Chronicles 31:15), one easily gets the impression that the name is never mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet 'Yeshua' appears there twenty-nine times, and is the name of at least five different persons and one village in the southern part of Yehudah ("Judah").

In contrast to the early biblical period, there were relatively few different names in use among the Jewish population of the Land of Israel at the time of the Second Temple. The name Yeshua was one of the most common male names in that period, tied with Eleazer for fifth place behind Simon, Joseph, Judah, and John. Nearly one out of ten persons known from the period was named Yeshua.

It seems to me that, in the real world, Jesus is shown as being somewhat deluded. He thinks He is the Son of God and he has gathered round him people who, like those who followed Harold CampingWiki’s “End of the World” prophecy, believed every word He said.

Jesus is cautious enough not to bring around too much change. The imprecation to “stick with Jewish Law” (see also Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.) is a sign that he is trying to alter the approach to the practices within the law rather than the practises themselves, thus avoiding charges of blasphemy.

If you do not accept that Jesus existed and that he was a mythical folk-hero, then he is portrayed as a moderate with the interests of the common man at heart.

« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 10:09:21 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Sorry, Graybeard, but I don't see Jesus like that - at least not the Harold Camping type anyway. (i wonder what happened to Harold Camping..)

The way I see it, is that Jesus sees his mission to reform Judaism - to take apart the rules the make life tough for the people at the bottom. Sins could only be forgiven, in Judaism, by making a sacrifice an the temple wanted taxes too. All of this meant changing money to temple money via expensive money changers and the animals for sacrifice had to be perfect so that meant buying them at the temple to avoid and animal being rejected.

Then again, there were lots of hated people in Israel but the money changers and tax gatherers were the least like - probably because the tax gatherers worked for the Romans, the occupying force. Naturally enough, no one wanted to help them and the clergy of the time expected to stay at the temple and people to go to them.

Jesus' message seems to have been for a Judaism that respected people and one in which forgiveness was freely available for the asking and not needing of third parties such as priests. People were told they could ask for things directly to god without any intermediaries. This is a revolution in Judaism. The sad and ironic fact is, that as soon as the new church was set up, the clergy set about taking away the freedom Jesus gave taking back the job of dealing with sins etc from the people! Sad really.

Oh, and though some people called Jesus 'son of god' he seems to rejected it in favour of 'son of man'. the latter could refer to the latter part of Daniel but most likely is just another way of saying 'man'.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Where do you see us supporting the “Catholic canon”? We believe in the WHOLE Bible and we see it all from the Hebrew perspective. Would recommend you buy an AENT so you can see exactly I’m talking about. Paul didn’t have any “tiffs” with “the Jewish position”; he had a problem with half-hearted people who tried to pick and choose their way through Scripture.

They seem to be in denial that the books were created by Catholics, to support the proposition that the law had been abolished.

Where do you see us supporting the “Catholic canon”? We believe in the WHOLE Bible and we see it all from the Hebrew perspective. Would recommend you buy an AENT so you can see exactly I’m talking about. Paul didn’t have any “tiffs” with “the Jewish position”; he had a problem with half-hearted people who tried to pick and choose their way through Scripture.

They seem to be in denial that the books were created by Catholics, to support the proposition that the law had been abolished.

Could you post the url, please? I would like to read around the quote.

Paul might have been a Jew but, as we see in Acts 15, he argued strongly for the Jewish Law to no apply to his Gentile converts and Peter and the others settled for refraining from eating meat offered to idol and from eating blood. Paul didn't seem to uphold much of the 'Jewish position'.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

18 I tell you the truth;More likely would the lands and the skies pass away,Than for an iota or a piece of a letterTo pass away from the Law, Until it all is fulfilled.

To me, this verse is a clear statement that the Law could and possibly would pass away after "all was fulfilled." The question that needs to be addressed is what exactly was the all being fulfilled that the writer was refering to.

Thru reading the NT we can see that the writers often took liberties to make Jesus look like he fulfilled OT messianic prophesy. This text may be just another case of the writer of Matthew trying to make Jesus this prophetic fulfillment figure.

18 I tell you the truth;More likely would the lands and the skies pass away,Than for an iota or a piece of a letterTo pass away from the Law, Until it all is fulfilled.

To me, this verse is a clear statement that the Law could and possibly would pass away after "all was fulfilled." The question that needs to be addressed is what exactly was the all being fulfilled that the writer was refering to.

Thru reading the NT we can see that the writers often took liberties to make Jesus look like he fulfilled OT messianic prophesy. This text may be just another case of the writer of Matthew trying to make Jesus this prophetic fulfillment figure.

Gosh, that's a rotten translation. 'uranos' is used to mean heaven so that the usual translation 'heaven and earth will pass away' shows the magnitude of what is being said. Now given that heaven was supposed to surmount the dome over the earth it means almost the same but it really isn't right.

The word fulfilled can also mean completed but that hardly helps with deciding what has to have been completed. I would be inclined to wonder if it refers to the death, rising and ascension of Jesus. What we have here is Matthew writing in the 70s CE It is some time since the meeting of Peter and Paul (Acts 15) in which the Gentiles were relieved or almost all the burdens of the law. Here is Matthew putting this decision into Jesus' mouth. With these words, Matthew silences those who thought believers ought to continue with the burden of the law but Matthew finishes the discussion with this phrase.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Gosh, that's a rotten translation. 'uranos' is used to mean heaven so that the usual translation 'heaven and earth will pass away' shows the magnitude of what is being said. Now given that heaven was supposed to surmount the dome over the earth it means almost the same but it really isn't right.

I don't know Wheels, seems like 'ouranos' and sky are indeed synonomous based on the accepted definitions of the word where the sky can include everything from the expanse visible above the Eart, the stars, as well as the pressumed dweeling place of the gods.

The word fulfilled can also mean completed but that hardly helps with deciding what has to have been completed. I would be inclined to wonder if it refers to the death, rising and ascension of Jesus.

Only (Christian) revisionist history would equate fulfilled with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In my mind, a more reasonable explanation would be that fulfilled was mentioned in conjunction with the writer asseting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah which did not forsee a death, burial, and resurrection of this chosen one.

Could you post the url, please? I would like to read around the quote.

It's not a quote. It's an email, in response to my question that the Bible was comprised of books chosen by the Catholic church, to create the impression that the law was fulfilled, whatever that means.

I wrote another reply, but it appears that the people who run the site, are of the impression that the entire NT was originally written in Aramaic, and that they are in possession of an authoritative and unbiased English translation of it (which they sell) http://www.aent.org/

To me, this verse is a clear statement that the Law could and possibly would pass away after "all was fulfilled." The question that needs to be addressed is what exactly was the all being fulfilled that the writer was refering to.

If I say, I will not move from this spot, until heaven and earth pass away, til I get a burger in 3 hours. You just know something is wrong with the implied meaning.

Similarly, if a statement starts with the assertion that someone has not come to abolish something, and then they do in the next sentence; you know they are not a clear communicator. But it could be something to do with being dishonest. Christians may have wanted to change the law, but not had the guts to say so, so they said they were not abolishing the law, but "fulfilling" it, where "fulfill" means some obfuscation of your choice, which can only be divined from a proper understanding of numerous arcane metaphors involving marriage, wineskins, and rents. (Which are all ambiguous and contra)

The marriage metaphor tends to indicate that you don't throw away your old wife, so the law is still in force.The wineskin metaphor tends to indicate that we are using new wineskins.The clothing metaphor could mean either. Either you shouldn't repair old clothes, or you should throw them out.

If the Jewish Christian position that the law has not been radically changed in some way, is actually true, then Paul was a seriously bad communicator.

Quote

This text may be just another case of the writer of Matthew trying to make Jesus this prophetic fulfillment figure.

There is some good evidence that some of the original components of Matthew were written in Aramaic, judging by all the puns that don't make sense in Greek.

I conclude that the trinitarian command at the end of Matthew is an addition on the basis that

1. nowhere else in the Gospel is there this association of the three characters2. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is shown as subservient to God which includes praying to God. If Jesus were, in fact, god he would have no need to pry to himself would he? 3. This is the last paragraph of Matthew and its theology of different. Surely that means an addition doesn't it? 4. Finally, we have parallel account in Acts 1. Jesus, in this parallel account doesn't use and trinitarian terms. now we can't date this very easily, though some see Luke as a little later than Matthew due to the minor agreements.

Haven't come across anything to indicate it was added later. But, since the earliest known complete copy of Matthew is about 200 years after the fact, the idea verses 16 thru 20 of Matthew 28 being added after later cannot be ruled out.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

While we are on this - how do you like the idea of the birth narratives being late additions to the texts and not being part of the original gospel? On of the problems with the birth stories is that they have very little in common exxpect the birth of the baby and the fact that the couple ended up in Nazareth -a place that was just a few houses at the supposed time of Jesus birth.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.I am here to explain to you how to follow Jewish laws, because you have it all upside down

[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:If anyone teaches you to break many Jewish laws, they will probably not make it into heaven

For my argument let's say Jesus did exist, but only as a very wise man. In my opinion the 2 statements above contradict each other. Coming from a Church of the Brethren background, the Brethren creed is - "no creed but christ " - meaning the focus should only be on the 4 gospels, with love and service being the main point of Jesus' teaching. The first sentence above Brethren would consider exactly the point of the christian religion, that the world - society - has everything backwards. A Brethren college professor has written a book, The Upside down Kingdom , describing this belief and what the christian religion should try to accomplish.

As one of the historic peace churches (Quakers, Mennonites, Amish,etc) in Brethren view, the ideas of nationalism, business, capitalism, greed, etc. is what is wrong with the world - with the attempt being to live a simple life, almost laughing at the idea of pursuing wealth.

It's almost surprising that Joseph McCarthy didn't try to have these churches disbanded during the 50's communism witch hunt.